16 September 2012

Seeing the crowds packed into Trafalgar Square and the Mall
to welcome the Olympians and Para-Olympians recently gave me pause for
reflection. I had thought that one only saw crowds like that at the Kaaba in
Mecca or in the streets of Bombay. For a small country we certainly pack in an
awful lot of people. This is a matter of concern for some and something that
must not be spoken about for others.

The Forum for the Future produced a report in
2010 called Growing Pains, about human numbers, which was well
covered in the media at the time – yet it did not spark the much-needed
national debate and the issues it raised are rarely discussed now.Population as a discussion topic is off-limits
for most UK politicians, in a way that plays into the hands of illiberal and
xenophobic organisations.

However, the UK population is projected to grow at its
fastest rate since the post-war ‘baby boom’, increasing from 61.4 million now
to 70.6 million in 2030. A further 9 million people by then will increase
pressures on public services, infrastructures and the natural environment – all
requiring long-term planning. Therefore all major public infrastructure bodies
and service providers should carry out detailed planning for the impacts of
continued population growth. So far there is little sign of that and it will
not happen if the political will is not there. Back in 1972, at the first UN
Conference on Environment and Human Development in Stockholm, population was a
big, controversial topic of debate. If governments had started planning then,
we would not be facing the crisis we are now.So,why the vast silence?A
possible explanation for that is that environmental NGOs and opinion formers
are anxious that we concentrate our minds on environmental degredation and over
–consumption in the rich world – while ignoring the ultimate cause of both of
these pressing problems: over population. Jonathon Porritt worked on the Royal
Society’s People and Planet report which came out in April 2012
and it is well worth reading – although it shies away from tackling
over-population head on.

The reason for this is the almost universal preconception
that “coercion lies at the heart of the population control agenda”.This stems from the fear of China’s
one-child policy being repeated here. But this need not be the case. Deciding
voluntarily to limit your family to two children would be another way of
dealing with the problem.Jonathon
Porritt says: “A voluntary, rights-based approach is the only way to promote
effective family planning. In other words, make family planning and other
reproductive health services freely available and fully accessible to everyone
– and empowering and encouraging them to use it”.I heard the Duke of Cambridge say recently that he would like two
children and wondered if he and the Duchess of Cambridge were knowingly setting
a trend!

In July this year I attended the “UN Forum 2012 –
Bringing the UN to the UK”. This was the largest civil society
gathering on the United Nations in the UK this year. It was organised by the
United Nations Association (UNA-UK) and was an opportunity for people of all
walks of life to come together and discuss some of the most pressing challenges
facing the world today – from intractable conflicts to sustainable development.

The Forum was well attended by people of all ages – and yes,
it did tackle the issue of over-population in one of its workshops. One of the
speakers on the panel was Sara Parkin OBE. She is a Director of The Forum
for the Future. She spoke passionately about the need to educate women
in the developing world on birth control and access to contraception. She
demonstrated that the issue of birth control is linked to population growth,
which is inevitable linked to sustainability and climate change – and she
referred to the Secretary General of that 1972 Conference, Maurice Strong, who
said bluntly back then: “Either we reduce our population voluntarily, or nature
will do it for us brutally.”

As a species we think that we have
– or will have - the technology to solve the problems of population growth and
climate change. This is an arrogant and foolish pretension. The reality is far
more complicated.Sara Parkin had this
to say: “Currently, rich countries are alone in showing a rise in average
family size. With a disproportionate impact on the environment, this puts them
on fragile ecological, moral and diplomatic territory. A child born in Europe
accounts for 11 times more greenhouse gas emissions than one born in Africa; for
North America, the figure is 24 times. (These do not include ‘offshore’
emissions embedded in imports.) Ultimately, it is clear that, with
increasing pressure on key resources, such as land, food and water, everywhere,
planning our family is a personal responsibility, as well as a global
dilemma.” She also pointed out that: “The UN has three projections for the
global population in 2100: High = 16 billion; Medium = 10 billion
(we are roughly on track for this); Low= 6 billion .And that lower
projection - of 1 billion people fewer than there are now - is achievable”.

“This is a target that could be met simply by responding to
the two hundred plus million couples around the world who say they want
contraceptives to help plan their family but can’t get them, and by ensuring
new generations get the information and contraceptives they need to plan their
future families. There are countries with hugely successful programmes to learn
from. Thailand, for example, has achieved lower birth rates without any sort of
coercion, as has Iran, a country not often cited as an exemplar of world
leadership. Above all we need – in the UK- to talk about the numbers of people
and our demography as we plan for the future. Any hopes of ending environmental
degradation, meeting the Millennium Development Goals, creating resilient
communities and economies, and building trusted governance systems will be
dashed unless there are fewer of us in the future than there are now. If we
can’t do that by bringing down birth rates thoughtfully and carefully, then we
shouldn’t be surprised if rising death rates do it for us. At all levels the
crisis is a humanitarian one. The solutions are known, are cheap, and come with
many collateral benefits”.

All that may well be so, but the political will to achieve
them must be there too – and I leave you with the stark statement of Roger
Martin, Chair of Population Matters. Reporting on the Earth
Summit, he said: “I had to conclude that governments basically don’t care if
the planet collapses under us in 20 years time. Their concerns are to get
re-elected by providing short-term growth that unsustainable growth capitalism
has persuaded us to demand. This raises the hugely challenging question of the
tension between sustainability and democracy. The only solution is to persuade
electorates to demand more sustainability and less consumption – easier said
than done, when politics and the media are unanimously desperate for growth”.

4 comments:

P.J. o'Rourke had it about right when he said "way too much of you,just about enough of me"

Your Malthusian pessimism excites green types but I was very surprised by something I read in the First Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. It was in Ch 2:

17. In the long term, all of the projected growth in the UK population is attributable to net immigration. If there was no migration (that is, zero immigration and zero emigration), the projected population in 2081 would be 3.3 million lower than in 2006. Professor Robert Rowthorn of Cambridge University calculated that, with zero net immigration or "balanced migration" (i.e. when immigration equals emigration), the population would be 3.7 million higher by 2081 (p 27). Balanced migration increases population growth because immigrants are, on average, younger than emigrants and are thus more likely to have children (p 2).

Thank you, Chuck, for your comment. What a lot of points you make!I haven't any children so, if we're being personal, the ex-leader of the Greens and I balance out at 1.5 each - but I don't see that it's relevant. Let's have no special pleading from "America's most provocative satirist", since P.J.O'Rourke's country is an even bigger problem than ours is. Let's see whether Malthus was a pessimist, a realist or merely a dyspeptic clergyman when the facts themselves resolve it.Of course the Lords are correct: the UK population has always been about net immigration - ever since the first humans trudged wearily behind the retreating glaciers. So what?At least the racists think they know where they're coming from, in a manner of speaking, though I'm uneasy about their views.

Malthus was hopelessly wrong - although very aware for his time - since we are more than capable of feeding the world several times over thanks to massive advancements in 'technology'. We just don't. Big difference. The carrying capacity of the planet is potentially huge if we can get along with each other.

Your comments about Malthus belie your excitement at a future potential human tragedy proving you 'right'. I don't get that. I also don't get the leader of a Green Party having three children? I kind of like Bill Hick's take on it when he said: "Can you calm down on your rutting just for a couple of seconds until we work out this food-air deal?"

The first 'humans' were nowhere near any glaciers. But that's another story. They did, however, probably look a bit like Kelvin McKenzie despite being more evolved.

I worrty about this concern with populationh growth because it obscures the real problems which are the control of food production and distribution by monopoly cartels, the global inequality between states and within states, the political aspects of immigration - its not about food and numbers but about who is able to consume and pollute with impunity - generally the better off in the West and increasingly the rich elites of the Third World

About the Column

The One World Column raises issues such as international development, social justice, globalisation, peacemaking, human rights, international relations and the environment. Our six columnists intend to provide a positive voice for the future and to represent a wide group of concerned Norfolk people. We welcome feedback and healthy debate!

Books

Rupert Read
Philosophy for Life

Rupert Read is Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia. His book Philosophy for Life explores a series of contemporary political and cultural issues from a philosophical perspective, arguing that philosophy is not a body of doctrine, but a practice, a vantage point from which life should be analysed and, more importantly, acted upon.